Barclays Bank History Series IV

A Genealogical Study of the Families Who Created the Bank 

 

PART IV -- THE BEVANS

Barclays Bank Transitions 

 

In 1865, ten years after Charles Barclay died, Barclay, Bevan, Tritton and Co. merged with Spooner, Attwood, and Twells, taking on the new name of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Twells, and Co. Partners of the firm were then:

·         Henry Tritton.

·         Joseph Gurney Barclay.

·         Joseph Tritton.

·         Francis Augustus Bevan.

·         Philip Twells.

·         Henry John Tritton.

·         Robert Barclay.

·         Joseph Herbert Tritton.

Another merger occurred a generation later, in 1888, according to the previously cited Handbook of London Bankers. The previous partners of the banking business at 54 Lombard amalgamated with Ransom Bouverie, and Co., of Pall Mall East, under the style of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie, and Co., and business continued at 54 Lombard Street and at 56 Pall Mall East, the office of the newly merged partners. This newly acquired firm had a history described as follows:

Pleydell-Bouverie castle of Earl of Radnor

Ransom, Bouverie, and Co. This well-known West End banking firm was founded by Mr. Ransom, who took into partnership Sir F. B. Morland and Mr. Hammersley, under the style of Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley, who established themselves about 1786 at 57, Pall Mall. That continued to be the style of the firm until 1796, when Mr. Hammersley left them to start a new bank, which he set up at 76, Pall Mall.

From that date to 1814 the firm was known as Ransom, Morland, and Co., carrying on business at 56, Pall Mall. In 1819 Sir F. B. Morland left the firm to establish a bank of his own under the style of Morland and Co.

Debrett's Illustrated House of Commons etc.

In the following year the Directory shows that Ransom and Co. moved to No. 34, Pall and in 1823 to 1, Pall Mall East, at which house the bank is still located. At the death of Mr. Ransom, the Hon. Douglas Kinnaird (fourth son of the seventh Lord Kinnaird, by Elizabeth, daughter of Gaffin Ransom, Esq.) became head partner. He was the uncle of the late head partner, the Honourable Arthur Kinnaird ; and it was he who built the premises Nos. 1 and 2, Pall Mall East, as a banking-house.

The style of the firm was Ransom and Co. until Messrs. Bouverie, Murdoch, Bouverie, and James, of 11, Haymarket, amalgamated with them in 1856; since which time the style of the firm has been Messrs. Ransom, Bouverie, and Co. In 1876 the firm consisted of the following partners:

The County Families of the United Kingdom

The Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M.P. (afterwards Lord Kinnaird). James Gordon Murdoch. Philip  Pleydell Bouverie. Charles Townshend Murdoch. Arthur Fitzgerald Kinnaird. Henry Hales Pleydell Bouverie.

It was announced in the Times of June 25, 1888, that Messrs. Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, and Co. had entered into partnership with Messrs. Ransom, Bouverie, and Co., to take effect from July 2, under the style of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie, and Co., and that the business would be conducted, as heretofore, in Lombard Street and Pall Mall East;
the partners being :

• Messrs. Robert C. L. Bevan,
• J. Gurney Barclay,
• Francis A. Bevan,
• Charles T. Murdoch, M.P.,
• Robert Barclay,
• J. Herbert Tritton,
• Lord Kinnaird,
• Henry H. P. Bouverie,
• Wilfrid Arthur Bevan, and 
• Edward H. Barclay.

Messrs. Seymour Pleydell Bouverie and Roland Yorke Bevan hold the signature of the firm. 

We can clearly see that in 1890 Barclays Bank was being run by three Barclays, three Bevans, one Tritton, from the original bank, to whom had been added, as a result of the merger, one Murdoch, one Bouverie and a Kinnaird. A lawsuit involving Bouverie which was being litigated at the time of the merger indicated, not only was his income mortgaged to the hilt, but his trustee was in the habit of lying to other potential lenders to Bouverie about the status of his trust--possibly the reason for the Barclays buyout of the Ransom Bouverie bankers.

With these changes in mind, we continue by detailing how marriages in the Bevan family changed the face of the bank.

Marriages between Barclay and Bevan 

Timothy Bevan

David Barclay and his first wife Anne Taylor, besides the two sons we mentioned in Part II, also had a daughter named Elizabeth, who married Timothy Bevan, a son of Sylvanus the Quaker apothecary.  To this marriage another Sylvanus Bevan was born. 

 

Export of drugs to America in 1758

Timothy and Sylvanus Bevan had worked with Timothy's brother-in-law, David Barclay, to put together the financing to buy the Southwark brewery. Meanwhile, the other Bevans' primary interest was in building up their pharmaceutical inventory and operating an export business for such goods.  

 

The Bevans remained silent partners in Barclay & Perkins while selling their own products abroad until Timothy's death in 1786. Thereafter, Sylvanus joined the pharmacy full time, while his brother, Joseph Gurney Bevan, worked as a partner in the bank.

 

Timothy Bevan's father-in-law David Barclay (1682-1769) had a second set of children after his marriage to Priscilla Freame, including two more sons--John and David. John Barclay married Susanna Willett and moved to Clapham, near Anchor Brewery, to help Robert with the business, which exported quite a lot of beer to American ports. 

In previous posts we indicated that the Anchor had been previously owned by a family named Child, then by one Edmund Halsey. Since publishing that, we did additional research, which indicates how the change in owners transpired:

Ralph Thrale born in 1672 was left an orphan at nine years old, and went to Offley to live with his mother, who had remarried. His uncle Edmund Halsey, who was to become proprietor of the Anchor Brewery in Southwark and M.P. for Southwark, befriended the boy. Ralph went to London and eventually succeeded Halsey as owner of the Brewery. Ralph was the father of Henry Thrale. 

At that same website, we also read:

In 1692 Halsey [Ralph Thrale's uncle] was receiving £1.00 a week - half the salary of his master [his father-in-law, James Child] and within 20 months had become a partner. There is no evidence that he purchased his partnership and, as the partnership deed was drawn up on the 6th November 1693, only ten days before his marriage to one of James Child’s daughters - Anne. It might well have been his wife’s dowry.

From the date of the partnership, Halsey ran the business efficiently, as the cash bulletin for the years 1693 to 1702 shows regular sums of up to £100 per week, large amounts in those days, were paid in excise duty; and in May, 1695, both he and Child drew £400 each in profits....

Sir Josiah Child, EIC

James Child died on 22 February 1696, at the age of 66. He was buried in St. Dunstan-in-the-East Church in London. By his will, directed that his estate be equally divided into three, one-third being left to his widow Anne Child née Minnie, and the remaining two-thirds to his daughters under the age of 21 years…His widow retained her husband’s interest in the brewhouse, Halsey paying her a weekly sum until her death in 1701.

When we match up the dates, what we learn is that Sir Josiah Child, the 1st Baronet, was born in 1630, and he was the brother of James, who owned the Anchor. Josiah at Portsmouth was appointed "victualler to the Navy," and accumulated a significant fortune which he invested in a joint stock company called The East India Company. Josiah became a director of the East India Company in 1677,  according to one website, and was

"elected governor of the East India Company in 1681, serving in that post for most of the decade. For a time he was virtually the sole decision maker for the company, directing policy as if it were his private business. He was often openly accused of using the company to aggrandize his social, economic, and political position. He received his baronetcy in 1678."

Sir Josiah Child died in 1699, leaving a son, Josiah II (c.1668-1704),  succeeding as "2nd Baronet, his father’s will left him no more than had been settled upon him at the time of his marriage in 1691. His sister Mary, who had married against their father’s wishes, was similarly treated, being left only £5. It was Josiah’s younger half-brother, Richard (1680-1750), who had been made their father’s principal heir, and it was he who came into possession of the Wanstead estate."

Josiah II was married to Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thomas Cooke, one of his father’s East India Company associates, who also served as Member of Parliament for Wareham between 1702 and 1704. As Sir Josiah Child II had no children, Richard succeeded him as 3rd baronet. He also inherited the £4,000 per annum which had been settled upon Josiah for life, bringing his own annual income to some £10,000. 

He did not maintain his father’s active connection with the East India Company. Richard Child was a Member of Parliament and described as demonstrating “a certain political flexibility,” which enabled him to make a smooth transition between the Stuart and Hanoverian regimes. In 1715 he completed the family’s journey from its mercantile origins by purchasing his ennoblement via George I’s mistress the Duchess of Munster (afterwards Kendal). Richard Child later Tylney, 1st Earl Tylney, 1st Viscount Castlemaine and Baron Newtown of Newtown, 3rd Baronet (1680–1750) He and his sons took the name of Tylney in place of that of Child by Act of Parliament in 1734 when his wife inherited the estates of that family. We will continue researching this family alongside the bankers.

The Bevan Marriages

David Barclay Bevan

Sylvanus Bevan's first wife died in 1769, only a month or two after they were married. Four years later he married outside the Quaker community, and thereby lost his standing within it. There were no children from the Quaker marriage. All the children would be born to his second wife, Louisa Kendall. When he had assisted David and Robert Barclay in their purchase of the Thrale brewery in Southwark in 1781, Sylvanus's eldest son, David Barclay Bevan, was then a lad of seven years old. 

Sylvanus left his Quaker community after being ousted in 1773 and located to Winchmore Hill, north of London, where he and Louisa reared seven sons--including David and the youngest son, being named Richard Bevan--who eventually became partners in the bank. 

David turned 17 in 1791, and it was decided that he should be trained in the workings of the bank since his grandfather, Timothy Bevan, had died a few years earlier, leaving a gaping hole that needed to be filled. David Bevan went to work at the bank on Lombard Street, and, after six years of hard work, he met his future wife, 17-year-old Favell Bourke Lee, a recent orphan with an intriguing background. 

 

David Bevan's Marriage to Favell Bourke Lee 

Favell Bourke Lee

In 1798 David married Favell Bourke Lee, daughter of  Robert Cooper Lee and his wife, Jamaican-born Priscilla Kelly, an illegitimate daughter of Judge Denis Kelly. Lee had been Crown Solicitor-General of Jamaica and had four mixed-race children born out of wedlock there before he returned to live in England, where he married Priscilla before Favell was born in 1780. 

 

Favell's father, Robert Cooper Lee, was born in Ireland, but like many others besieged by Cromwell's anti-Catholic policies had fled to Jamaica in 1749 when he was only 13. At first he sold ribbons to support his family in Ireland, but rose to be Crown Solicitor in Jamaica, working under the Chief Justice, another Irishman, Denis Kelly. Kelly had married a former Jamaican slave, the mother of Priscilla Kelly, future wife of Robert Cooper Lee.

 

Lee left Jamaica for England and worked as a barrister in Bedford Square. There he filed a lawsuit to legitimize children born to him in Jamaica before his marriage to Priscilla. One source relates:

Robert Cooper Lee who had four mixed-race children born illegitimate in Jamaica, and was responsible as a trustee and guardian for his illegitimate mixed-race nephews, made such an application in December, 1776, in an Act “to authorize and enable Robert Cooper Lee, late of the Island of Jamaica, but now of the kingdom of Great Britain, esquire, to settle and dispose of his estates, both real and personal in this island, by deed or will as he shall think proper, notwithstanding an Act of the Governor, Council and Assembly of this island, instituted, an Act to prevent inconveniences arising from exorbitant grants and devises made by white persons and the issue of negroes and to restrain and limit such grants and devises.” [Source: Anne Powers (17 December 2011). "Blocking Legacies to Negroes and Mulattoes," A Parcel of Ribons: Eighteenth century Jamaica viewed through family stories and documents. 

Trent Park mansion of R.C.L. Bevan

David and Favell married in 1798 and soon had sons to help make up the next generation of the bank. Their second son was Robert Cooper Lee Bevan, named for Favell's late father, and was described as:

An excellent man of business, Robert [Cooper Lee] Bevan spent fifty years in the City, and with justifiable pride witnessed and assisted in the expansion of Barclay, Bevan, Tritton & Co. into one of the leading banking concerns in the kingdom. Little, however, did these shrewd bankers of a hundred years ago foresee the enormous proportions to which their business would attain, and great would be their surprise to-day if they could peruse the current balance sheets of Barclays Bank, Limited. In 1864 the cramped old premises at 54, Lombard Street were demolished, and a more modern building erected. [Source: Audrey Noble Gamble, A History of the Bevan Family (London: Headley Brothers, 1924] 

 

R.C.L. Bevan

Since Favell's father was a member of the Irish peerage, David Bevan's marriage took him into a whole new realm of non-Quaker acquaintances and set up his children, beginning with the eldest daughter, Louisa Priscilla Bevan, to marry into a somewhat "higher" social class. 

 

In 1825 Louisia married Augustus Henry Bosanquet of Marlebone, whose name would appear for many years as a director of the Imperial Fire Insurance Company, alongside the names of Louisa's brother, Robert Cooper Lee (R.C.L.) Bevan and a cousin, Thomas George Barclay, whose father, Charles Barclay, inherited the brewery from Robert, who had been installed there by David Barclay with help from Timothy and Sylvanus Bevan. Just in case you may have forgotten.

 

Admiral J.S. Yorke

R.C.L. set his marriage sights on Lady Agnetta Elizabeth Yorke, a daughter of the late Admiral Joseph Sydney Yorke and great granddaughter of Philip Yorke, the 1st Earl of Hardwicke. The Yorke men rose in Parliament during the period of the Hanoverian Kings and were rewarded as a result to their attachment to them.

 

According to Romney R. Sedgwick: "In 1740 he [Philip Yorke] entered the territorial aristocracy by buying the estate of Wimpole in Cambridgeshire from the 2nd Lord Oxford," and in the same year "married his eldest son to the grand-daughter and heiress of the Duke of Kent, on whose death shortly afterwards she succeeded to Wrest in Bedfordshire, becoming a Marchioness in her own right."

 

Titles were everything. With them came landed estates. 

 

Lady Agnetta Yorke's brother, Charles Philip Yorke, was Postmaster-general in Lord Derby's cabinet, and also installed as the 4th Earl of Hardwicke. The Yorkes were a powerful force within Britain's government of that time, but her father was also tied to naval duties and never quite grasped the art of political prowess. He "was drowned off a yacht struck by lightning in the Hamble, 5 May 1831." 

In 1836 Robert Cooper Lee Bevan replaced Robert Barclay as Auditor for Imperial Fire Insurance Co., and R.C.L. Bevan would continue rising in his career at the bank, eventually replacing David Barclay Bevan, his father, as chairman.

 

 

 

Timothy Bevan's descendants. Click to enlarge.

 

 Spouse Families Brought into Barclays, Bevan and Co.--Yorke and Earls of Hardwicke  

Earl of Harwicke

R.C.L. Bevan, as Robert was often known, had lived a lustful life by his own description, before being converted a generation or more after his Quaker ancestors were kicked out of the sect. He then became determined to meet Agneta Yorke, sister of the Earl of Hardwicke. He proposed to her in 1836, and, in seeking her brother's consent, Robert admitted their unbalanced social status, saying: "I am quite aware of the difference in our Stations in Society, but I have reason to hope that will not be considered by you as an insuperable objection." 

After four years of marriage, RCL and Agneta rejoiced over the birth of their son--Francis Augustus Bevan--who would be educated at Harrow before joining Barclays Bank at the age of 19. 

Robert Cooper Lee

 

Three years after he had gone to work for the bank Frank Bevan married Elizabeth Marianne Russell. Her father--Lord Charles James Fox Russell--was Sergeant at Arms of the House of Commons from 1848 until 1875. 

 

Lord C.J. Fox Russell 

Because of the photos we have seen, he appears to have been the man who carried the Black Rod in the ceremony in which the Commons are summoned to the Lords. The ceremony is thought to have begun in its present form in the year 1642 and was intended to:

...emphasise that both the House of Commons and the City of London are independent corporations, with franchises or liberties of their own, and a royal messenger engaged on formal business needs the special leave of the corporation to enter it. 

I backed up and took the research more slowly the second time. When I had added Francis Augustus "Frank" Bevan's wife to the family tree, and added in her ancestors, something had clicked. It was as though someone behind the scenes had been at work to manipulate the marriages and births for at least a hundred years or more prior to that wedding. 

 

Georgina Gordon

Frank Bevan's father-in-law, as it turned out, was the son of Sir John Russell, the 6th Duke of Bedford. It was his wife, Georgiana Elizabeth Gordon, born in Scotland in 1781, who led us back to something that rang a familiar note. Her parents were named Alexander Gordon and Jane Maxwell. It certainly It was like deja vu, all over again, to quote Yogi Berra's well-hackneyed phrase. 

 

We traced our steps back to a prior Alexander Gordon. You may recall Alexander Gordon, the 12th Earl of Sutherland, who married Jean Gordon in 1573. It was their granddaughter, Katherine Gordon, the White Rose of Scotland, who married Col. David Barclay in 1647, leading up to numerous marriages we have already explored. This new Alexander, amazingly, appeared to be a descendant of the Barclays' Scottish family explored in Part One of this series. I say "appeared to be" because some have strongly contested that claim. 

 

See video.

But then I looked more closely at the name Sir John Russell as well and discovered his ancestor, William Russell, 1st Duke of Bedford, born in 1710 at Streatham, was found guilty of treason and was beheaded in 1683, at the end of the Hanoverian era, five years before the Act of Settlement ushered in William and Mary as the new monarchs from the House of Orange. 

 

Then I noticed that Streatham also sounded familiar. 

 

What had I overlooked? Had I misunderstood the importance of the Anchor Brewery? 

 

Ownership of Streatham Manor 

 

Floundering around the search engines, I discovered the Thrales did not appear to have owned Streatham House where they lived and entertained Dr. Johnson, as we discussed in Parts II and III-A. Only a few years earlier, the Manor House at Streatham had been the venue for the marriage of 11-year-old Elizabeth Child and 14-year-old John Howland, as depicted in a portrait painted by Holland Tringham, according to the following:

Holland Tringham painting

Elizabeth Howland was a daughter of Sir Josiah Child, Chairman of the East India Company. The Howlands had been Lords of the Manor of Tooting Bec since 1599. Elizabeth married John Howland, and their daughter, also Elizabeth, was heir to her parent’s fortune and also to a considerable portion of Sir Josiah’s.

On 23rd May 1695, Elizabeth married the Marquess of Tavistock, later the 2nd Duke of Bedford, at the Manor House in Streatham. The Marquess became, by marriage, immensely wealthy, and in the same year King William III created him Baron Howland of Streatham. Both the bride and groom were just 14 years old. [According to some accounts at Ancestry.com, she was three years younger.] Their children later became the third and fourth Dukes of Bedford. The Marquess and Elizabeth both died of smallpox, he in 1711 and she in 1724.

Elizabeth had a brother named James Child, who was mentioned in a website called Thrale History, where I discovered that, in 1693 the King recommended James Child, "merchant of London, who has done faithful service in supplying the navy with beer, and has bought a brewhouse in Southwark to brew for the household and navy, for admission as a free brother of the same company, for the same fee as the late Timothy Alsop the King’s brewer paid."

King William III's reign encompassed the years 1689 until his death in 1702, and Timothy Alsop had been referred to several times in Samuel Pepys' Diary as "Brewer to the Royal Household." The Child family also popped up in the family tree I was making on the families who owned Barclays Bank--all of whom were intermarried. Only one genealogy covered all of them. 

Our interest in Anchor Brewery originally stemmed from the fact that it became the property of the Barclay family in 1780. Learning that its origins coincided with its connection to the British East India Company (BEIC) caused us to wonder whether the Barclay family's ultimate success in banking stemmed from the same connection as "victualers for the King."

King Charles II had created that position as early as "1660 and succeeded the earlier position of Clerk of the Navy" and Keeper of the King's Ports and Galleys. Sam Pepys himself held down the position until about 1690. As for the Child family:

We emphasize at this point in our research that Josiah Child's policies fell under the category called mercantilism. According to the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (Updated: June 27, 2025):

Mercantilism contained many interlocking principles. Precious metals, such as gold and silver, were deemed indispensable to a nation’s wealth. If a nation did not possess mines or have access to them, precious metals should be obtained by trade. It was believed that trade balances must be “favourable,” meaning an excess of exports over imports. 

Reading that definition in 2025, I was struck with how similar the idea was to what's happening today in Trump World, thanks to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. Forcing a trading partner to buy our goods is exactly the same belief about trade that led to the Opium Wars with China. Who planted that belief in the little educated, irrational mind of Donald Trump and Howard Lutnick? We can only wonder at this point.

 

Nevertheless, I was intrigued about how Josiah Child, famous mercantilist head of the East India Company, found his way into our Barclay banking families' genealogy, so I kept digging for any sort of information I could find. I learned that Child had been the author of a treatise with a long title some 18 years before his death: 

"A treatise wherein is demonstrated, I. That the East-India trade is the most national of all foreign trades, II. That the clamors, aspersions, and objections made against the present East-India company, are sinister, selfish, or groundless, III. That since the discovery of the East-Indies, the dominion of the sea depends much upon the wane or increase of that trade, and consequently the security of the liberty, property, and protestant religion of this kingdom, IV. That the trade of the East-Indies cannot be carried on to national advantage, in any other way than by a general joynt stock, V. That the East-India trade is more profitable and necessary to the kingdom of England, than to any other kingdom or nation in Europe by Philopatris." [London: Printed by T.F. for Robert Boulter,]

 

M. Kienholz had called John Howland of Streatham the "Earl of Berkeley," before stating that William Russell (Baron Howland) married a daughter of John Massingberd, the East India Co.'s treasurer. Elizabeth Massingberd, Countess of Berkeley, was born in 1627, so that was one place to start. 

 

 

 

Conception of National Interest with Disastrous Implications

The Americans were marvelously ingenious in their exploitation of the commerce. They managed to circumvent both the East India Company's franchise and the Chinese Government's prohibition and carried on a very lucrative, if antisocial and ultimately ruinous trade. Finally, the fact of American participation in the [opium] traffic fundamentally altered the American posture in the Far East. It grew like the Southern view of slavery -- what began as an economic necessity ultimately developed into a conception of national interest with disastrous implications for the future.

Quoted from an article by Professor Jacques M. Downs, "American Merchants and the China Opium Trade, 1800-1840," published in The Business History Review, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Winter, 1968), pp. 418-442. Downs was professor of history at St. Francis College in Biddeford, Maine. (See his obituary in the September 17, 2006 Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram.)

The entire 26-page research article (available for purchase at various websites or free from JSTOR in libraries which subscribe), from which the above quote is taken, appeared in print the same year that the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy ripped apart the United States. I remember that year with both horror and awe, as my own life suffered a violent philosophical wrenching so alien to what was occurring all around me. As a sophomore in high school when President Kennedy had died from assassins' bullets, I had almost completed my college courses as a major in history and government in my West Texas home by 1968. While friends and family carried on as though nothing had occurred, my life was changed forever.

Courtesy of Gnostic Center

The previous year my English lit class had studied Plato's Republic, and I felt as though I were living the scene where Socrates describes the cave-like prison where inhabitants face a wall where they view only the shadows of what is going on behind them, created by a light behind the events being played out in reality.

It was not unlike the mirror image of a world into which Alice had climbed--almost real, but not quite real. And the sound track was being provided for us daily to describe the events, that we couldn't quite trust as truth. My education was only just beginning, but it was interrupted for quite a few years of angry cynicism that kept me off-track. I did not know where to turn. I began to distrust everyone and everything. Finding my way back was a long, hard road. I watched as many of my contemporaries were sucked into Vietnam, either as war or anti-war participants. Little did we know at the time that the history about which Professor Downs had written was coming to pass.

Excerpts from "American Merchants and the China Opium Trade, 1800-1840," by Jacques M. Downs

An Existing Business Model

Most of our knowledge comes from the accounts of Europeans visiting or residing in Smyrna in the late century. More complete information apparently must await the systematic exploitation of Turkish records. [See - By far the best sources I have found to date are Salaheddin Bey, La Turquie a l'exposition universelle de 1867 (Paris, 1867) 48-56, and Carl von Scherzer, Smyrna (Vienna, 1873), 136-140. Scherzer was Austrian Consul at Smyrna for many years and should know his subject. See also O. Blau, "Etwas fiber das Opium" in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft (1869), 280-281. The latter article, though very brief, cites several earlier sources in German and French. Unfortunately, neither Blau nor many of his references are readily available in this country.]

Opium was planted in late October and November and began to grow during the winter. Although the cold weather kept the plants small, the root-system developed considerably. Thus with the coming of spring, the plants would grow rapidly, each sending up from one to four stalks three or four feet high. At the end of April the poppies bloomed, and about two weeks after the petals fell, the poppy-head was fully developed and ready for harvesting....

Map of Ottoman Empire, circa 1792

The crop began arriving in Smyrna toward the end of July or the first of August and continued until the following spring. [See a letter from Thomas H. Perkins to John P. Cushing, January 15, 1825, Samuel Cabot Collection, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.]  Merchants resident at Smyrna purchased the raw opium for shipment overseas, most importantly to the Orient, though one-quarter to one-half seems generally to have gone to Europe and elsewhere.

In the early days of this commerce most Americans employed the good offices of the British Levant Company, since it was customary to use "the flag and the protection" of a nation which had a trade agreement with the Sublime Porte. [fn. - The United States had no formal agreement with the Porte until the Rhind Treaty of 1830. For further information, see Samuel Eliot Morison, "Forcing the Dardanelles in 1810," New England Quarterly, I (April, 1928), 208-225.] For this service, they paid "a light consulage and dragomange duty, roughly about one per cent on the value of goods imported and exported." Although the British Consul-General in Constantinople reported as late as 1809 that Americans still preferred to consign their goods to the Levant Company, the trading pattern soon began to change.

As early as the late 1790's, American vessels were calling at Smyrna but it was not until 1804 that Philadelphia and Baltimore ships began the trade in earnest. [See Charles C. Stelle, "American Opium Trade to China prior to 1820," Pacific Historical Review, IX (Dec., 1940), 430-431. See also letter from R. Wilkinson to James Madison, January 15, 1806, U.S. Department of State, Despatches from Consuls in Smyrna, I, National Archives, Washington, D.C.] Probably the first figures of any consequence in the American drug trade from Smyrna to China were James and Benjamin C. Wilcocks. The former arrived in Smyrna in 1804 as supercargo of the brig Pennsylvania. They cleared for Batavia, but both were in China by the following October. Benjamin remained, but James appears to have gone home with the ship, to return via Smyrna on the Sylph the following year with more opium. [Note:  The Wilcockses sailed for their kinsmen, William Waln and R. H. Wilcocks of Philadelphia, who continued to send ships to Canton consigned to the brothers. See letter from Wilkinson to Madison, January 15, 1806; Despatches from Consuls in Smyrna. Benjamin Wilcocks remained in Canton until 1807 or 1808. He then returned home and established a business in Philadelphia but "was obliged to return . . . in 1811." See letter from John R. Latimer to Mary R. Latimer, March 30, 1830, John R. Latimer Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.]

Apparently the commerce paid, for several other American China merchants immediately showed an interest. Willings & Francis sent opium aboard the Bingham in the spring of 1805, [See letters from the supercargo, William Read, in the Willings & Francis Collection, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The brig Eutaw, Captain Christopher Gantt, of Baltimore was in Smyrna from July to November, 1805, and then sailed for Canton with 26 chests and 53 boxes of opium aboard, and in January of the following year, Stephen Girard seems to have become excited by the possibilities of the trade. He wrote two of his supercargoes in the Mediterranean:

"I am very much in favor of investing heavily in opium. While the war lasts, opium will support a good price in China .... " [See letter from Girard to Mahlon Hutchinson, Jr., & Myles McLeveen, January 2, 1805, Stephen Girard Papers, Girard College Library, Philadelphia, Pa. on microfilm at the American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.]

James & Thomas H. Perkins of Boston, who had relatives in Smyrna, had inquired of their nephew at Canton as to the market for Turkish opium in China. [Note: Extracts from two letters from J. & T. H. Perkins to John P. Cushing June 19, September 23, 1805, quoted in J[ames] E[lliott] C[abot], "Extracts from the Letterbooks of J. & T. H. Perkins..." (See typewritten Manuscript, Massachusetts Historical Society, n.d.] John Cushing [See Biographical Dictionary of American Business Leaders by John N. Ingham] had gone to Canton as clerk to Ephraim Bumstead, a former apprentice in the Perkins house. Bumstead fell ill and died, and Cushing, age 16, took over. When he came of age, he was made a partner in the firm, Perkins & Company, which he had organized and run since his arrival. He proved to be a merchant of rare ability and amassed a fortune of nearly one million dollars before he finally sailed for home in 1831. Others soon joined them, and the first of a series of "opium rushes" was reported at Smyrna by Girard's disappointed agents. [See letter from Mahlon Hutchinson, Jr., & Myles McLeveen to Girard, March 30, 1806, Girard Papers.] In 1807, another Philadelphian, George Blight, reported from China that while opium "at times paid very well," it had "disappointed many the past season" because the trade had been far overdone. [See letter from Blight to Girard, March 4, November 21, 1807, Girard Papers.]
 

Opium As a Specie Substitute

Here was a pattern which was typical in the American China trade. Precisely the same configuration had appeared in the commerce in ginseng, sealskins, sandalwood, and just about every other specie-substitute American merchants discovered. The first ships would make a killing, the scent of which would draw others into the trade until the market was saturated, and the trade ceased to pay. Thereafter, periodic gluts would occur until the supply became exhausted (as with sandalwood and fur) or until a few of the stronger firms established some sort of loose organization of the market. In the Turkish opium trade, the organizers were Perkins & Company and its allied concerns in Boston.

America's War on Drugs

What we had begun to see by 1968 was a phony war against drugs. We were being told that marijuana was a gateway drug, not only highly addictive, but which would lead to even worse opiate addictions--primarily heroin. A war was necessary. Not only should all these narcotics be "controlled," but anyone who used or possessed them should be prosecuted as criminals. I was rebellious only in mind and spirit but quite conservative where behavior was concerned. I avoided all drugs, including tobacco, and had never even tasted beer or wine until after graduating college in 1970.

I lived and operated within a strange world of half-life, where I did what a good girl would do, while at the same time held those who would try to control my beliefs or actions in total and utter contempt. I knew in my gut that Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, had not killed President Kennedy, that Sirhan Sirhan was also a mind-controlled patsy, and that there was something much bigger and uglier than James Earl Ray who was responsible for killing Martin Luther King. I could not explain how I knew, but I did.

I had completed law school by 1975, while maintaining a deprecatory  opinion of lawyers and a fear of being co-opted if hired by a firm of them. I shunned the adversary system which I saw as a sham that required sophistry of the highest register. I refused to argue on behalf of or support people or principles with which I disagreed. Thus I eventually found a niche within the land title and abstract industry, which seemed so close to my love of history. In time, I prospered, grew ever confident within myself, and began to meet others who shared my point of view--thanks, of course, to the internet.

It was only after meeting such folks as Kris Millegan and Catherine Austin Fitts, hearing their stories, reading and researching with them in the mid-1990's, that I was able to free the restraints that kept me from changing my position in the cave. Only with their helpful insight did I begin to look at reality head on. I can never thank them enough for allowing me to step into the world of truth where we now reside together.

We had started to realize by that time that the drug war was being fought to benefit a secret intelligence group who wanted to eliminate their competition and thus effectively create a price support floor under the commodity which paid for America's "national security" infrastructure.

So many of our research community referred to this phenomenon as "CIA Drugs," but I knew it began much earlier than the year 1947, when the CIA was born. Little did I know that Professor Downs had already discovered in 1968 that elements within our government had conceived of this use of opium as a substitute specie as being in the "national interest," or national security interest as it became to be called, and that conception would have ever more disastrous  implications for us and our world.

From Oyster Bed to Walrus in One Fell Swoop

In "Seeing the World Whole," I tried to emphasize what two English men, prime minister Disraeli in 1844 and Lewis Carroll in 1871, had discovered about the world in which they lived, during the same era in which the Forbes family came to prominence in the early years of self-government in the United States. We live simultaneously within alternative universes. THE WORLD IS NOT AS IT SEEMS.

Hedging Bets

Hartford Convention or LEAP NO LEAP, ca. 1814

As we ended the previous segment in 1776, we were struck by the number of colonists, such as James Murray, who bet all they had on the wrong side. Loyal to the British Crown to the end, Murray went with others who opposed the revolution to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and forfeited all his interest in properties he owned within the newly declared nation.

His sister and two daughters, nevertheless, remained behind in Massachusetts and fought to retain title to the land and businesses they had worked for. The collected letters of James Murray, Loyalist, published in 1902, tell us that his these women were near Cambridge when they heard the guns from the battle at nearby Bunker Hill, and they fled from the Inman estate, taken over by patriot general, Israel Putnam, for his camp. They ended up at the Brush Hill mansion near Milton. Scroll down to the map inset below for these locations.

Murray's sister, Elizabeth Inman, remained in Massachusetts throughout the war and until her death in 1785. The property of Ralph Inman in Cambridge, though confiscated for a time, was returned to his family, all Tories as well, and sold in 1792; it is now part of the community northeast of Harvard. Elizabeth somehow reconciled with the old curmudgeon, and he survived her by three years, though his avarice and envy continued even as his wife lay dying. Dolly Forbes was present to witness this, while her sons were coming to adulthood.

Unlike her father and husband, Dolly was a realist who was able to cast aside any preference for British rule from a distance and take her chances with the new self-government. She did so completely alone, after her father's evacuation in 1776, her husband's departure in 1783, and her beloved aunt's death in 1785, living on her own there in Boston and its surrounding communities of Milton and Cambridge until her own death in 1811.

John Forbes, you may recall, had spent his adult years in East Florida while it, too, was British-owned, and we are told by E.L. Pennington in an article in "Florida History Quarterly," VIII, 164-68, January 1930 that he had:

received his education at King's College in old Aberdeen, where he passed through the ordinary course of Greek, mathematics, and philosophy, and attended lectures in divinity. The University of Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of M.A. in the spring of 1763, and he was then recommended to the bishops of the Church of England for ordination to the ministry.... In 1783, after nearly twenty years in the province, he returned to England on leave of absence, in bad health. He died in England, September 17, 1783, leaving a widow [Dolly] and three sons:

• James Grant Forbes (1769-1826),

• John Murray Forbes (1771-1831), and

• Ralph Bennet Forbes (1773-1824).

It's Whom You Know...

The first Forbes son, James, took his ill father back to Scotland in 1783, and remained to be educated (see footnote in link) before pursuing the same career as his grandfather and many of his Murray relatives had chosen--trade in the West Indies--as he attempted to recoup his father's land at St. Augustine, East Florida, which had been part of that ceded to Spain in 1783. Some have called the term "West India trade" to be a mere euphemism for the slave trade, but by any definition, the region of Santo Domingo (today's Haiti). where they lived for a time was the center in the Caribbean islands for the triangular trade that did include slaves as one of its legs.

Santo Domingo in the West Indies

John Murray "Jack" Forbes, Dolly's second son, entered Harvard that year at the age of only 15; in 1787, he graduated in the same class with future U.S. President, John Quincy Adams (hereafter J.Q.). Still operating under the articles of confederation, the new country had not yet adopted the current Constitution. J.Q.'s father, John Adams, a diplomat as well as vice president in George Washington's administration before he himself was elected the second U.S. President in 1796, worked hard to see the new country succeed, despite all attempts from opponents to ensure its collapse.

Four years older and more mature than his younger classmate, J.Q. on occasion dined at the Forbes home in Boston. James had returned from Scotland by then, as the two brothers are mentioned in the diary J.Q. kept. Selected excerpts from that diary indicate that most of J.Q.'s youth had been spent abroad with his father, both of whom were born in Braintree, later called Quincy, Massachusetts. A map of the colony, showing the area reveals how closely woven the Adams family's roots were with those of the Murray and Forbes haunts, labeled for convenience below.

Click to enlarge.

Showing the closeness of Forbes and Adams is the following whimsical verse they wrote together during their last year at Harvard. It first appeared in print in the Harvard Graduates' Magazine in 1917:

J.Q.'s diary relates that, after Harvard, he studied law under Theophilus Parsons (author of pamphlet, The Essex Result) in Newburyport before setting up a law practice in Boston in 1790. During this time, in the fall of 1788, J.Q.'s health suffered, and he found himself somewhat dependent upon opiates for sleep, the diary revealed, but whether the dependence continued we do not know.

Of Consuls, Spies and Sealing Wax

Dolly Forbes' son Jack also began the study of law at the same time, but under different men and locations in Massachusetts--in Lancaster under John Sprague and in Brookfield under Pliny Merrick. Intriguingly, however, he began a nonexistent practice in 1794 with Charles Porter Phelps (Harvard 1791), who married Theophilus Parsons' niece in 1800; after her death in 1817, he married Parsons' 27-year-old daughter, Charlotte in 1820. Phelps, like J.Q., studied law under Theophilus Parsons in Newburyport, but a few years later. The same year Phelps moved to Boston to begin his law practice, coincidentally, was the only year Forbes claimed to have been in practice, and it was the same year J.Q. Adams was named Minister to the The Hague, Netherlands by President George Washington.

Jack Forbes, really only a boy when they first met at Harvard, was described by Adams in an almost intimate March 1787 entry in his diary, shown in the inset below:

John Quincy Adams' description of John Bennet "Jack" Forbes I

J.Q.'s reference to Jack's older brother, James Grant Forbes, supplemented by footnote 3 which begins at page 343, gives sufficient details about Dolly's eldest son to discern that he was a soldier during the war of 1812, both under Gen. Andrew Jackson and under Gregor MacGregor, where he served as a spy for Secretary of State Adams in 1818 and subsequently.

During this same time the spy's younger brother Jack was serving in the new diplomatic corps being created for the United States by their friend J.Q., Secretary of State for President Monroe. About John Murray Forbes, footnote 2, which begins at page 343, in J.Q.'s diary states:

From J.Q. Adams' diaries about John Murray Forbes (1771-1831)

Commercial Agent for U.S. Gov't?

One month before leaving office in 1801, Pres. John Adams included as part of his "midnight appointments" a place for Jack as commercial agent in Le Havre. 

Although confirmed by the Senate, the papers were not delivered to him before Thomas Jefferson's inauguration, and Jefferson, suspecting these appointees would not be loyal to him, named his own man for the post.

It took some lobbying before he agreed to name Forbes as consul in Hamburg--"a Situation of the highest Commercial importance and responsibility," as Jack Forbes termed it in a thank-you letter to the new President in 1802. 

At this consulate, Jack soon began to operate a "commercial partnership" with younger brother, Ralph Bennet Forbes, now at loose ends after the slave rebellion in Santo Domingo ended his prospects there. (The papers from Jack's days as U.S. Consul at Hamburg and Copenhagen, 1801-19, and U.S. Agent at Buenos Aires, 1819-31 are deposited at the Baker Library at Harvard.)

In a previously published version of this research it was stated:

The youngest son, Ralph Bennet Forbes, who learned the shipping business as an apprentice to his uncle, John Murray, in Virginia, made his first journey to the Bordeaux wine region of France in 1795 with a shipload of rice and tobacco, which he traded for brandy, a product which his ship then transported to Hamburg, the center of the old Hanseatic merchant associations, before making the return voyage, possibly loaded with salt and other commodities from that port. In this triangular fashion he spent much of his life, at times making his home in France, where two of his three sons were born. He was one member of a large family of adventuring merchants who had traveled the world in such fashion for many generations. [See The History of Milton, Mass.: 1640 to 1887 written by Rev. Albert Kendall Teele, (Boston: Press of Rockwell & Churchill), 1887, which mentions John B. Murray of Alexandria, Va., stating that Ralph was apprenticed to him in 1787, but it did not identify Murray as Ralph's uncle; that was an incorrect assumption on my part at the time of writing.]

Of Slaves and Drugs and Sailing Ships

Ralph was in fact an apprentice to Dolly Forbes' first cousin, John Boyles Murray, whose father was Dr. John Murray, her uncle, a physician in Norwich, England. All of the Murrays seem to have been trained for trade with the West Indies, probably the British island of Jamaica, as well as British colonies in America before the revolution. James Murray had chosen to settle in North Carolina where many Scots were situated. At the end of Ralph's training period in 1791, he went to Port-au-Prince, St. Domingo now (Haiti) where his eldest brother, James Grant Forbes, was then engaged in the trade, most likely as an employee of James and Thomas Handasyd Perkins.

Slave revolts begin in 1792.

Thomas Handasyd Perkins was slightly older than James and had decided at a young age to be a merchant servicing as apprentice to the Shattucks in Boston until 1785, at which time he and his brothers entered into trade together between Santo Domingo and New England. That trade consisted of acquiring slaves from Africa with rum and iron taken there from New England. Their ships would then leave the West Indies with raw sugar and molasses produced by slave labor and delivered to New England to make rum.

The marriages that occurred in the Perkins family reveal much about the business climate in eastern Massachusetts at that time. This is the family into which the youngest Forbes son would marry in 1799. His wife's older siblings and their spouses welcomed him into their homes and took him into business with them. Together they would be numbered among the wealthiest families in the entire state.

Children of James and Elizabeth (Peck) Perkins:

• Elizabeth in 1773 married Russell Sturgis;
• James Perkins, Jr. in 1786 married Sarah Paine, daughter of Timothy Paine, a Tory-sympathizing judge, forced to publicly recant his views and resign his judgeship;
• Thomas H. Perkins in 1788 married Sarah Elliott, daughter of Simon Elliott, a tobacco merchant in Boston, from whom they inherited some valuable mill property;
• Samuel Gardner Perkins in 1795 married Barbara Higginson, daughter of Stephen Higginson of Salem, Mass.;
• Ann Maynard Perkins in 1785 married Captain Robert Cushing, and their son John Perkins Cushing was taken into Thomas Perkins' home upon Ann's death.

James and Ralph Forbes remained in Haiti only until about 1795. The slave insurrections devastated any investments they may have made, as well as those of Ralph's in-laws, the Perkins family.

See ebook segment and footnote below*

*(See page 568, in The History of Milton). At one time a firm of distillers called "Loring and Snelling" of which Caleb Loring of Hingham, Massachusetts, was a partner, owned a ship called Rising States; it was seized by the British during the war. Whether or not it was the same ship, one with the same name is mentioned in "Papers of the American Slave Trade." The Perkins family had also started their West Indies trade after starting life in Hingham.

Time to Speak of Commerce, of Cabbages and Kings

What we learn from reading the diaries of various officials in the new U.S. government is that the consular appointments seemed to be rewards granted to men willing to engage in their own commercial business abroad and in turn send intelligence back to the President and his cabinet officials. To illustrate this point, read the biography of James Murray Robbins, son of Dolly Forbes' sister Elizabeth. Robbins was born and reared in Milton and actually moved into the Brush Hill mansion in 1805, where the Forbes girls had lived with their aunt before the revolution. The details were filled in by the Appendix to the Letters of James Murray, Loyalist (p. 310):

James Murray Robbins ... was born June 30, 1796, in the old Gooch house on Milton Hill. When he was nine years old his father removed from Milton Hill to Brush Hill, within the same town, making his residence in the Smith house, which had become the property of his wife; and here, eighty years later, the son died. He received his school education at the Milton Academy, which his father [Edward Hutchison Robbins] had been largely instrumental in founding, and of whose board of trustees the father and son filled the office of president for seventy-six years. At the age of fifteen [1811] he entered the counting-room of the prominent Boston merchants, James and Thomas Handasyd Perkins, and there acquired a thorough training in business habits. But the time was not propitious for commercial enterprise or success; the widespread stagnation of business, consequent upon the blockade maintained by the British fleet, and the hardly less oppressive acts of our own government, seemed to bar the way to entering upon the career of a merchant. In 1814 his cousin, John Murray Forbes, who was consul-general at Hamburg, invited him to accept official employment at the consulate; and it is not difficult to imagine how gladly the boy of eighteen must have exchanged the round of dull and apathetic duty in the counting-room for the excitement of the voyage and of foreign travel.

By 1811 Ralph had already been married to Margaret Perkins 12 years, and the brothers had given up trade in the West Indies for the East Indies, with China. In the meantime the young Robbins cousin went to Europe to replace Ralph Forbes. The editor of The Letters reports that President Monroe, through his secretary of state, Jack's old friend J.Q. Adams, called Forbes home and entrusted him with negotiations following Napoleon's defeat at the hands of the British, while the teenage Robbins was sent to Elsinore [Helsingor], Denmark, not far from Jack's 1813 post in Copenhagen. Was he merely there to keep his eyes and ears open and courier intelligence back?

The United States, as the only republic then in existence, had been engaged in war with the British monarchy since 1812, philosophically assisted throughout by the French after their own revolution against King Louis began in 1787. (See timeline and interactive maps.) The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 by an alliance between England and Prussia did not bode well for self-government. Did Jack Forbes laugh when the American officials trusted him with America's foreign affairs? Did President Monroe, the last Founding Father to serve as chief executive of the United States, know what was about to hit the fan? Did anyone understand at the time that the cost of such intelligence to the new nation was to allow those consular officials free reign in smuggling drugs?

We can only wonder now if Jack Forbes was a serious patriot to American constitutional government or whether he was only looking out for his family's business interests. Did he smile at all the brave oyster-like young men who followed in his steps, believing in their own patriotism? Lewis Carroll would later describe such gullible patriots well in his poem of how the walrus and the carpenter tricked a few eager oysters into becoming lunch by merely inviting them for a walk.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by Lewis Carroll

from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872

The Walrus and the Carpenter
The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

Walrus wept as Carpenter ate the oysters.

To Be Continued....